Home arrow Latest News arrow Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India.

Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India. PDF Print Email
Written by Administrator   
Friday, 01 February 2008

Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India. 

Ask any small child , when a wife after marrige demand any Gift/money/property from husband and from his family , is it called Dowry?

The answer will be a big "No". Then why it is reverse in the case of Husabnd, does all the Husbands family a Free ATM Machine?

But our LAW makers as well as radical women orginasations never open thier eyes or never try to understand the basic of the same , result more and more misuse of Dowry LAW we wittness to extrote the money in more than 98% cases as per court record, it is the wife family demending and taken money from husbands family in open court and the same is not crime at all.

Dowry itself is a Vogus word and it is created by Indian radical feminist orginasations and greedy/money minded girls family hide behind the word so called Dowry and cheat thier own daughter/sisters basic right on Streedhan and equll right in parental property and always treat the husbands family as free ATM machine.


Save family foundation and thier associates , even Ms. Madhu Kiswar, continously demand and urgue that if any one harrese others for any money and property the same to be termed as Extrotion or Blackmailling, but our LAW maker failed to accpet the same. At last Supreme court understand that each and every dispute can't be termed as Dowry harrasement, which is a small step to stop the legal terrorism and misuse of 498A, DV act and crpc 125 maintiance act.


Every 4 min in india a innocent person( who never demanded any dowry or money form wife) including ageold mother/pregent sisters/child are facing false and fabricted Dowry case and send them behind the bar without any evidence, as there is no eveidence is required and 498A is non-bailable .Inspite of LAW comission, various Judges recomonded to make the 498A bailable offence , our LAW makers have not done any effort to save the innocent people. Let stop this legal terrorism by our radical women orginasations, who even advocate that adultrity by a wife , killing un-born child also should not be a crime in this country, Special Thanks to our bad mothed women minsiter likes Mrs. Renuka Chowdhury .


Please sign.- IN SUPPORT OF THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India. 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be deprecable but cannot be categorised as dowry to make it a punishable offence.

This means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments.

Acquitting the parents-in-law of a woman who had accused them of harassing her for dowry, a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and S Sathasivam took help of a 2001 judgment of SC to say that not all demands from the parents-in-law could be categorised as 'dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It said though the Act covers payment of money or articles during, before or after marriage by the girl's parent to her in-laws, the cash and presents given had to have a link with the marriage to become objectionable in law.

"Other payments which are customary payments, for example given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies, are not covered by the expression 'dowry'," said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.

A Haryana trial court had continued the dowry harassment charges against the woman's husband while acquitting the parents-in-law, the married sister and brother of the husband. Though the high court allowed quashing of charges against the sister and brother, it said the parents-in-law were liable to be proceeded against.

The apex court said that when the trial court had held that an attempt had been made by the woman to rope in as many relatives of her husband as possible, the HC should have given some reasons while reversing a well-reasoned order.

It said judicial discipline demanded the HCs to give clear reasons when reversing a trial court order backed by facts. "Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutible face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudicating the validity of the decision," the Bench said.

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Further Reference:

Last Updated ( 2008-05-20 09:48:06 )
 


Disclaimer The content on this site, including news, quotes, data and other information, is provided by users for your personal information only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Content on this site is not appropriate for the purposes of making a decision to carry out a transaction or take any legal Action. Nor does it provide any form of advice (Personal, legal) amounting in defame someone else.Neither Save Family Foundation nor its third party content providers shall be liable for any errors, inaccuracies or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Save family Foundation EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY OF ANY CONTENT PROVIDED, THIS IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSE ONLY..Although Save Family Foundation makes reasonable efforts to obtain reliable content from third parties, Save Family Foundation does not guarantee the accuracy of or endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider. This site may point to other Internet sites that may be of interest to you, however Save Family Foundation does not endorse or take responsibility for the content on such other sites. Save Family Foundation do not claim any CopyRight on any Articles.